Jump to content
The Education Forum

1953-54: Harvey and Lee in Three Consecutive School Semesters


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

Maybe next time you'll actually show me a thing or two.

Keep firing blanks buddy...  :up

"ain't never gonna learn what you don't wanna know".....  You know John Ely's role, right?

And the difference between El Toro and Santa Ana in 1959....  

370549179_GorskysaysOswalddischargedinMarch1959-web.thumb.jpg.71aaf68e7874838a2847779a09be82ec.jpg

701064406_JennertoRankinaboutJohnElyandhisOswaldtimelineproblems-web.jpg.9a5b098c13e31e547706f76b8dcc8c9e.jpg59d7ec98bea8c_Elyhighlighted-AlanGrafandmarinescompletelyunknowntohiswork.jpg.005d710a55febefbd3c46279f4ab18a1.jpg

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Keep firing blanks buddy...  :up

"ain't never gonna learn what you don't wanna know".....  You know John Ely's role, right?

And the difference between El Toro and Santa Ana in 1959....  

[Pictures removed from reply]

First off, I'm not your buddy, pal.

Also, I've been meaning to ask this...but are you familiar with the "Allegory of The Cave?"

What exactly was the blank?

What I'm thinking here is that your reply was not in context to my reply. Or, your truth negates my point because Oswald didn't....wasn't....couldn't have.... That's probably how I'm firing blanks, because your truth is the truth and anyone not on board just doesn't get it.

In any event you guys are always, literally always saying this type of thing, but again and again you fail to provide any context, any explanation, any facts which might help support your position. No...instead you stick out your tongue and say "neener neener Mark's wronnnggggg...allllll the critics are just wronggggggg." Repetition doesn't make it true. It is made true by providing context, examples, and showing how my analysis, points, and firing is off the mark.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe in an event such as the assassination of a President we should use school yard tactics and antics to get our points across. It does at least appear to me as though we should have a better standard. While we surely do not have to enforce an absolute legal courtroom standard for evidence and for "cross examination" of said evidence. We at the least should in a reasonably professional and adult manner make attempts to scrutinize and uphold information to high standards. I mean, this is the murder of a President after all. If we want to be taken serious, maybe we should act serious. So let's examine our critic's arguments, let's show their flaws. Let's not just say, you're wrong buddy.

Kinda like when Norwood was wrong, and was firing blanks.

I copied his words and I copied my words.

I placed them side by side.

By doing so, I proved that what he said was wrong.

Simple.

Give that a whirl. 

Or you could just neener neener me again.

Or, you could answer one of the many questions I never asked, instead of actually answering the 6 or so I did.

So instead of dumping on whatever that is about Ely, and how it somehow explains the definition of common knowledge or even pertains to what I was talking about...why not instead lace your boots, tighten your belt, and make some attempt to answer my actual questions without trying to be clever and snarky, without putting words in my mouth, without dumping other puzzles on the one that already is on the table and without answering questions I never asked.

I guess the ball is truly in your court. 

***I figured I should add this in the event anyone is not a South Park fan. "I'm not your buddy, pal" was a humorous reference and not a dig of some kind at Josephs.***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

Kinda like when Norwood was wrong, and was firing blanks.

I copied his words and I copied my words.

I placed them side by side.

By doing so, I proved that what he said was wrong.

Mark,

It does not surprise me at all that you wish to claim victory in our debate about the Stripling evidence.  For my part, I would prefer that the readers make up their own minds after reading your rationale and my numerous rebuttals.

At the same time, I am troubled that you have never directly answered my question about why you believe the words of Vice-Principal Frank Kudlaty are unreliable.  To repeat:

There is one critical question to ask about Frank Kudlaty’s testimony, and that is whether or not he is persuasive in his recall of the visit from the FBI agents on 11/23/63 in which he handed over to them a file on Lee Harvey Oswald from the Stripling records.  Kudlaty recalled that he only had time to glance at the records, prior to the arrival of the FBI agents.  And yet, from that “glance,” Kudlaty did what any educator would likely do in his place:  he looked at Oswald’s grades and noticed that they were not very good grades.  A mundane admission like this gives Kudlaty’s testimony even greater credibility.  The quick glance at the file and the observation of the low grades stayed with Kudlaty for decades.  Unless you can convincingly challenge Kudlaty’s memory of that specific act carried out on 11/23/63, then the Stripling debate is over.

What specifically is the reason that you doubt Kudlaty's recall?  Was it due to a poor memory?  Did he confuse Oswald with another student?  Was he intentionally deceiving the interviewer to promote himself?  Was he working in collaboration with the interviewer in a conspiracy to promote a false narrative? 

In plain English and without resorting to another one of your filibusters, can you or can you or can you not provide a lucid explanation of why Kudlaty is an untrustworthy eyewitness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Mark,

It does not surprise me at all that you wish to claim victory in our debate about the Stripling evidence.  For my part, I would prefer that the readers make up their own minds after reading your rationale and my numerous rebuttals.

At the same time, I am troubled that you have never directly answered my question about why you believe the words of Vice-Principal Frank Kudlaty are unreliable.  To repeat:

There is one critical question to ask about Frank Kudlaty’s testimony, and that is whether or not he is persuasive in his recall of the visit from the FBI agents on 11/23/63 in which he handed over to them a file on Lee Harvey Oswald from the Stripling records.  Kudlaty recalled that he only had time to glance at the records, prior to the arrival of the FBI agents.  And yet, from that “glance,” Kudlaty did what any educator would likely do in his place:  he looked at Oswald’s grades and noticed that they were not very good grades.  A mundane admission like this gives Kudlaty’s testimony even greater credibility.  The quick glance at the file and the observation of the low grades stayed with Kudlaty for decades.  Unless you can convincingly challenge Kudlaty’s memory of that specific act carried out on 11/23/63, then the Stripling debate is over.

What specifically is the reason that you doubt Kudlaty's recall?  Was it due to a poor memory?  Did he confuse Oswald with another student?  Was he intentionally deceiving the interviewer to promote himself?  Was he working in collaboration with the interviewer in a conspiracy to promote a false narrative? 

In plain English and without resorting to another one of your filibusters, can you or can you or can you not provide a lucid explanation of why Kudlaty is an untrustworthy eyewitness?

You guys....

Seriously, it seems like you have this fervor to one up me at any cost and in doing so mistakes like Sandy's and Jim's are made, as well as the mistake you just made.

I wasn't "claiming victory in our debate about the Stripling evidence." I've proven on multiple occasions now, that you have not debated my points or arguments I made. Even if I were right, how could I claim victory on something which never occurred? I wouldn't stoop so low. I might say you all avoid to actually discuss the points, but I would never state I won a debate I didn't win just because the other guy didn't show up. That's not a victory.

My "claim of victory" regarded a specific post where you were wrong multiple times. I used multiple examples to not just explain that you were wrong, but to demonstrate and prove it as well. I mean anyone can say they caught a fish that big, but how many times do they actually show the fish?

Since you "closely scrutinized" my position, and you also created an entire topic dedicated to "a rebuttal to me" (as if this is somehow about me) you obviously read my points on Kudlaty (geez I even used the actual words from that post to correct you misrepresenting my position in the "victory" post I mention above).

It's clear to you what my position is regarding Kudlaty, and if it isn't then you are simply admitting that you didn't actually read what I said, but you knew the "bullet points" (which is ironic since the points about Kudlaty are actual bullet points) and you figured you could take me to task based on the summary of my points which you thought you knew. The issue is...is that all "critics" aren't the same. My points about Stripling may not be someone else's (I honestly don't follow this enough to know what someone else's specific points are other than general disbelief of the theory) and when you sweep us together under the same heading you do yourself, and us all, a true disservice.

Since you've admitted you don't actually know what my position on Kudlaty is (even after that close scrutinizing). Maybe you should also tighten your belt, and head over to my topic and actually discuss the points I made. I know...I know you made that rebuttal and all, but since I've proven that you didn't actually address my position(s) and you've now admitted you don't know what my position is...I think it would behoove you to do so.

Also, you keep making this about me (while complaining to moderators when someone does anything remotely near the same to you) and continue to overtly and passive-aggressively attack me. Could you please stop doing so, and make your posts about the evidence or my position? Please stop attacking my mental state, writing ability, thinking ability, etc.. As you've mentioned before, this is a clear violation of the rules. While I haven't reported you, it is bothersome and unnecessary and I would appreciate it if you would discontinue said behavior in the hopes of clearer lines of dialogue and discourse and the ability to focus on the points being made and not the person making them.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

In plain English and without resorting to another one of your filibusters, can you or can you or can you not provide a lucid explanation of why Kudlaty is an untrustworthy eyewitness?

Mark has already repeatedly pointed out the pitfalls of relying on Frank Kudlaty's recollections. One might think you had noticed his remarks, but perhaps you've forgotten.

The dilemma facing the crack H&L squad is how to accept from their witnesses' memories only what agrees with the H&L dogma, while somehow rationalizing away the aspects of witnesses' memories that conflict with H&L dogma.

Your witness says 1952, you say horse-feathers! 1954! OK, but he's your witness and that's not what he said.

Your witness says December to January, you say horse-feathers! September to October! OK, but she's your witness and that's not what she said.

Your witness says LHO was a quiet boy. Horse-feathers! Because the same witness says he was a hellion who wore a leather jacket and wasn’t afraid of fisticuffs!

OK, but she's your witness and said two contradictory things. She cannot have been referring to two different boys, or we would expect to hear her say that the quiet boy and the leather-clad boy were two different people.   Which it would have been helpful for her to say as it is the book's central contention.

Instead, she avers both halves of the contradiction, and you're left to sort out the resulting mess. That's your job; not ours.

Your witness says he got a call from Weldon Lucas. Horse-feathers! Because the same witness says he got the call from Harry Wylie. OK, but he's your witness.

As for that last example, I was somewhat surprised when John Armstrong threw himself on his own sword, claiming the latter discrepancy was down to his own human error. Kudlaty uniformly mentioned Wylie, we were assured, and Armstrong typed it out incorrectly as (Weldon) Lucas for a reason or reasons never explained.

Again, I demur.

Read the applicable text:

"Early on the morning following the assassination, Saturday morning, I was telephoned by my boss, Mr. (Weldon) Lucas (Principal of Stripling), and told to go to school and meet two FBI agents. I lived close to the school at that time and arrived at the school before they (FBI Agents) got there."

This was no after-the-fact recreation of a conversation (which Sandy is prepared to allow, even expect because.... who has a tape recorder with them? Um. John Armstrong. You know, the guy whose vids y’all keep linking to? How sleepy are you people?)

The use of quotation marks indicates this is a direct and verbatim recitation of what Kudlaty said, with the necessary insertions in parentheses made by Armstrong to provide the reader with .... spoiler alert.... use of all-time fave H&L expression coming up now... context!

Were this not a direct and verbatim quote, Armstrong would have been free to write the information so that it needed no parenthetical insertions.

And yet, there they are: “(Weldon); (Principal of Stripling); and (FBI Agents.)”

Who writes this way when they're merely recreating the content of a chat? It is John Armstrong being meticulous about inserting necessary information into the flow of what Kudlaty said.

It's a direct quote. And it's wrong.

But Sandy has already corrected me by suggesting that quotation marks don’t necessarily indicate a direct verbatim quote.... because quotation marks are used for what purpose, exactly? To depict what, exactly?

Authors of fiction use quotation marks when they invent dialog; authors of fact use them to stipulate the dialog was not invented. Which category are you claiming best suits H&L, Sandy?

If a tape exists, I'd like to hear the subject comments; not the whole tape, merely the references to either Lucas and/or Wylie. Then at least we'll know whether H&L fumbles the ball based on Kudlaty's inability to remember which school principal called him about the Kennedy assassination (um, ok), or Armstrong's inability to accurately type his own evidence (um, ok).

Which is the lesser calamity? Either way, bonus points for undermining the credibility for the book you so praise.

John Armstrong threw himself on his own sword in order to preserve what he thinks of as the credibility of Frank Kudlaty.

Far better we think Armstrong cocked things up rather than his star witness-once-removed to teenage spy larvae. Somebody mistakenly thinks Kudlaty's credibility is the more critical of the two.

But what do we have from Kudlaty? Aside from his uncorroborated assertion that he handled records for both Robert and Lee Oswald, his story was:

a) based upon records he barely saw (by his own admission, in recordings made by John Armstrong) that;

b) might have been elementary school records (by his own admission, in recordings made by John Armstrong), but;

c) whomever the records pertained to, he had bad grades and certainly didn’t finish a full school term.

Had Kudlaty been a teacher there during the pertinent period ('52 or '54, your preference) and taught an Oswald – any Oswald - it would perhaps plausibly imbue him with the credibility of someone with first-hand knowledge.  Even thirty to forty years after the fact.  This was not the case, however.

According to H&L's communications director, Armstrong was given a long list of teachers with whom it was suggested Armstrong follow up. Because I know John Armstrong to be thorough, I'm sure he did precisely that, at least with those former Stripling teachers still left alive forty years after the fact.

Hence, I was most surprised to deduce that this lengthy list led to little else.  It couldn't have.

Otherwise, we would have names of several other teachers from that lengthy list who could maybe verify not just Kudlaty's contention about school records, but who could perhaps personally vouchsafe that LHO was a pupil @ Stripling. (In either '52 or '54, your preference.)  Obviously, this is something Kudlaty himself could not do.

But we don't have that. We have - at least allusions to the existence of - a long list of one-time Stripling teachers who were either dead before Armstrong could locate them forty years after the fact – hence, no corroboration – or, they were alive and didn't confirm Summers or Kudlaty. Hence, no corroboration. Which rationale best explains the omission of the names of so many teachers?

Well, that clinches it, doesn’t it?

I mean, what else is left to discuss, right?

Btw – it is perhaps not the best judgment to refer to other member's posts as filibusters while simultaneously measuring the potency of one's own argument by word counts.

Do continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Well, that clinches it, doesn’t it?

You haven't "clinched" anything; you are only spewing forth words like your tag-team partner.  You can either make an attempt to answer the question in plain English or continue to lose credibility,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

So instead of dumping on whatever that is about Ely, and how it somehow explains the definition of common knowledge or even pertains to what I was talking about.

No surprise any time context is brought into the equation you start off on some half page rant....

"Common knowledge" among who are you referring, those at El Toro knowing one man, or at Santa Ana knowing the other? 

Isn't time you learned to cut your food up yourself instead of repeatedly feigning ignorance and asking for smaller and smaller bite sizes?

You see Mark, you come at this with so little knowledge of anything outside your little box that your question are juvenile and these attempts at dismissal are only amusing
making you look like no matter what is offered... your little knowledge trumps all... (pun intended)

Here's a thought... do some research BEFORE you reply.   

That you need me or Jim to explain who John Ely was in tiny bite sized pieces so YOU get it, and why what I posted by Jenner to Rankin is so important....

Blanks?  you need examples...  

"we can't change the fact that a little bit more of "Harvey & Lee" dies every day. Regardless of anyone's obstination, and refusal to release grasp on the necrotic limbs which are the Stripling and Beauregard tales, evidence continues to come to light which seriously questions and negates the "facts" as presented by Armstrong and team."

Boy oh boy you like those big words.....  we have a 1000 page book, thousands of images and hundreds of notebooks with documents you never knew existed... you hang your entire argument on 2 tiny limbs which sprang up from much larger, very healthy branches....   No "evidence" is offered other than your interpretations of the repetition of the same story over many years and from multiple sources.

In this thread you posted:  "Even if I believed "Harvey & Lee" I would dismiss everything related to Stripling because it doesn't add up."

To YOU, it doesn't add up.  To YOU Kudlaty is somehow not reliable and trustworthy in his commentary, ...to YOU Mark... no one but you reaches these conclusions from the evidence available to us....  

or this:  It's not within me where it is dying. It is just dying. It died within me the first hour I spent researching the claims.

And we're supposed to believe you approach the subject, the context and the detail with any level of open-mindedness as you post over and over and over about something that DIED within you...   I've spent 10 years with H&L....  Spent 2 years with Armstrong going thru footnotes and sources...   We don't agree on 100% of the details... but there is no arguing with the context or the mountain of evidence supporting the existence of these two men...

So no, I'm not going to cut your food into little bite sizes so you can fit them into you brain....   That you can't admit to yourself or to this forum that you simply don't have enough of a handle on the subject matter to arrive at any conclusions...  

I don't believe the evidence proves that Harvey was at BJHS in the Fall semester of 1953-54 school year....  Harvey and Ma left NYC after the infamous Zoo photo while Lee finished 8th grade.

We know Lee went to BJHS starting in mid-January....  we also know that Harvey was attending BJHS based on witness testimony only...  not the best evidence by far, but obviously in stark contrast to who Lee was pre-, during and post-.....  a much larger, stronger, physical boy versus the much smaller Harvey...

I've already posted the info on 120 N Telemachus in New Orleans and the one phone book anomaly during all those years Margaret Keating lived there.

In March 1954, a piano (schools had those little uprights if I remember correctly... not some huge piano) fell on him....
Myra took him to a clinic and then home to EXCHANGE ALLEY...  John wrote:

Myra stopped her car at 126 Exchange and asked Harvey if his mother was home. He replied,

"No, she's working at the bar."

NOTE: According to employment records, Marguerite Oswald was then working at Burt's Shoe Store. There is no indication in the Warren Volumes, or anywhere else, that she ever worked in a bar. We will soon learn that several people remembered the short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" imposter worked at a bar in the French Quarter and lived at 126 Exchange Place, while at the same time the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald worked at Burt's Shoe Store and lived in Myrtle Evans' building on St. Mary’s Street.

So you see Mark, in the Spring of 1954 LEE was assigned to homeroom 303 while Harvey was with Myra... Commission Ex 1413 has all these grade cards for 53-54 and 54-55.

More from H&L which you didn't read yet provides the context leading into the Fall of 1954.... how you could have found all this in one hour AND come to your conclusions related to Stripling is yet another great mystery of the JFK saga.

Room 303 is on the third floor of Beauregard Junior High School, while Myra's
homeroom was in the basement cafeteria. It appears that Lee Oswald was assigned homeroom 303,
on the 3rd floor, while Harvey was assigned to Myra DaRouse's homeroom in the basement cafeteria.
Now I understood why the FBI report of a 2 -hour interview with Myra disappeared, and
I also understood why Myra was never asked to testify before the Warren Commission. Myra would
have told the Commission that Harvey Oswald was in her homeroom in the basement cafeteria,
and not in homeroom "303" as listed on school records published in the Warren Volumes. In addition
Myra would have refused to identify the student in the "classroom photo" as Oswald, if she
were shown the photo. And imagine if Myra told the Commission that she drove Harvey Oswald
to his apartment at 126 Exchange Place in early 1954, when the Commission knew from Mrytle
and Julian Evans that Marguerite and Lee were living at 1454 St. Marys Street.

I'm terribly sorry you chose not to follow along as the context for what occurs in Sept 1954 requires more than your simplistic view of the Stripling evidence.

The book establishes this context step by step...   but then you wouldn't know that, would you...  another brick in the wall for ya Mark....  if indeed you're taking any of this seriously as it appears each time you reply, you don't.  After explaining some of this to you for the umpteenth time this is your reply:  And we're suppose to take you seriously?

Cool story bro. None of that though has any relation, any bearing, or any impact on Stripling and whether Oswald attending Stripling.

Another Beauregard classmate who knew Harvey Oswald was Ed Collier who
recalled, "We called him Yank because he had a Yankee accent."9 !t is now easy to see that
Ed Collier knew Harvey Oswald, from New York, in the 8th grade at Beauregard in the spring
of 1954. Lee Oswald, who was born in New Orleans and raised in Fort Worth, had a southern
accent.
Oswald's cousin, Marilyn Murret, also talked about Harvey's northern accent.
She told the Warren Commission, "It seems that he was from the North, and so they
ridiculed him in school..

After June 10, 1954 Myra no longer see her little friend Harvey.  Lee attends BJHS for the 54-55 school year and the rest of the evidence we've been over so many times along with your sarcastic and flippant attitude toward anything you deem not important or necessary to form your conclusions...

We've dealt with these kinds of endless "I'm not going to listen to anything that doesn't directly relate to the words in my question" attitude from the "iceberg pack" for more years than I care to remember.   (all your knowledge of the subject is above the waterline combined with that "no, no, no I'm not going to look beneath the water... I've seen enough" POV of yours....

Just read that one line of yours just above in blue.... trying to convince us you're actually interested and/or serious falls flat every time you post...

From 1947 thru 1959 and then thru 1963 we have hundreds of examples of evidence which made John Ely's work so hard and from which prompted Jenner's memo to Rankin.

When the day comes you decide to remove the blinders and step back from this leaf to see the forest, maybe you will actually be open to a real discussion....

As long as the evidence and context are just a "cool story, bro" to you... we have nothing more to discuss....
(and I'm not you're bro... or is that yet another weak attempt at South Park humor?)

And I did go over to the Brennen thread... and did see that once again your impression of things is different from everyone else, you're not quoted once in terms of adding anything to the collective knowledge presented,..  and your collage as to where Brennen was .. you even included this Bell frame: albeit a tiny version, when a full size version leaves one with no doubts or needs for personal conclusions...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wkx7S63i_NyfAFDi9WZo8yyyZat_Zdhz/view?usp=sharing    (highlight, right click, click Go To: "link")

Anyone with eyes can see where he is.... and the Towner film gives a decent view of what he actually saw at the time...  but that's another topic for another time...

I've come to the personal conclusion that Brennan was not directly facing the TSBD but was instead directly facing the Dal-Tex

Pithy Mark....  

  :up

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26636-did-even-the-warren-commission-believe-howard-brennan/?do=findComment&comment=426336

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

You haven't "clinched" anything; you are only spewing forth words like your tag-team partner.  You can either make an attempt to answer the question in plain English or continue to lose credibility,

Had you read the post - which you rarely seem to bother yourself with, hence your non-responsive "rebuttals"  - you would have known the context of the comment.  But you didn't, so you don't.

You keep company with Cinque and worry aloud about other people's credibility?

When did Doc Newbie get put in charge of determining such things?

Gadzooks you people have no self-awareness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me crazy, but would anyone here like to look beyond all the INSULTS and see some actual EVIDENCE?  

Here, I found some... and it didn't take long....


54-01.jpg

 

 

At the beginning of the 2nd semester (eighth grade), in January, 1954, HARVEY walked into Myra DaRouse's eighth grade home room in the basement cafeteria. The 1953-54 school year was the only year during which Myra had a home room, and she remembered the day she met young Oswald. Myra told me, "Well, the first day he came into my homeroom he handed me his file. When I read that his name was Lee Harvey Oswald, I said to him, 'how do you want to be called,' and he told me to call him HARVEY. So, I always called him HARVEY. I knew him only as HARVEY." This was the second time that the thin, slender young man  called himself "HARVEY." In 1954 young Oswald wanted to be called "HARVEY," so after talking with Bill Timmer and Myra DaRouse I began referring to the smaller, thinner, quiet Oswald as "HARVEY."
 


Myra described young HARVEY as "a little fellow, scrawny, skinny, and quiet. He came to the middle of my chest-about 4 ft 6 inches tall." When LEE Oswald began attending Beauregard JHS in January, 1954, he filled out a personal history sheet whereupon he listed his height at 5'5" and his weight at 135 lbs. LEE Oswald was much heavier and slightly taller than Myra, whereas HARVEY Oswald was very thin and quite a bit shorter than Myra. She saw HARVEY nearly every day before school, sitting on the front steps waiting for the school to open, and thought he was lonely. She saw him in her homeroom class, in the school library, and after school riding bicycles on the school grounds with Ed Voebel. On one occasion, after school, Voebel ran up to Myra and shouted, "Miss DaRouse come quick... come quick... a piano fell on HARVEY." Myra and fellow teacher Dorothy Duvic followed Voebel into the basement cafeteria and found HARVEY, on the floor, with a small upright piano lying across his legs. The two women lifted the piano off of HARVEY and then, with the Principal's permission, Myra drove HARVEY to the Monte Lepre Clinic on Canal Street. After examination by a physician, Myra drove HARVEY to his home on Exchange Alley and asked where his mother was. HARVEY replied, "She's working in a bar." A photograph of HARVEY's caretaker, the Marguerite Oswald imposter, was taken during the spring of 1954 in the apartment on Exchange Alley.
 

Marguerite Imposter 1954 126 Exchange
Marguerite Oswald imposter in 1954 in the apartment at 126 Exchange Place, New Orleans 1994 image of 126 Exchange Alley
in New Orleans (J. Armstrong)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

A false photo that combines Lee and Harvey? Huh? Falsified by who? Why? And then forcibly included in Robert Oswald's 1967 book? Why is it that H&L believers fail to accept that human beings sometimes get dates and times wrong, years after the fact? Is it so impossible to believe that Robert was simply incorrect about the date he put in the caption?

This photo:

lee-hunting-robert-said-in-feb-1958.jpg

Falsied by who?  The FBI and CIA photo labs.  The FBI collected everything about Oswald.  Even obscure school records.

Let's see.  This photo was in Robert Oswald's 1967 book.  So, one can assume he added the caption with the date and explanation.

Which do you think he got wrong?  The February, 1958 or September, 1959.  Which date did he have his memory lapse over?  Is it possible this is just a bad memory recollection? 

The Sept., 1958 date must be the one he got wrong.  Robert said to the Warren Commission in Feb. 20, 1964 that it was in September, 1959 that he and Lee went hunting at the Mercer Farm.  He simply didn't remember he said that to the Warren Commission in later years?

And, then later when he was in the process of writing for his 1967 book he put that caption on the photo with the Feb., 1958 date on the photo and didn't recall what he said to the WC in 1964.  Now this is strange because Robert gave a very detailed recollection of the hunting trip in 1964.  He listed who went, their equipment, and their exploit of Lee, Robert, and his brother all shooting at one rabbit. This is about 5 years after the event he described to the WC.  But, just a few years later he forgets this detailed story given to the WC and puts that caption on the photo.  Why?

That can't be Lee in Feb., 1958.  Lee is in the Philippines in 1958.  Can't be Lee in Sep., 1959.  He's gone missing and no one has reported where he was since his discharge in March, 1959.  Could Robert have mixed up Lee's homecoming in March, 1959 with Harvey's homecoming in Sept., 1959. 

So, this is Lee at some other date then that mentioned on this photo and later at the WC.  When Robert got all the family photos back from the FBI to write his book they had been altered.  Harvey's head is now on the Lee body.  He sees Harvey in the picture and remembers Harvey visiting from New Orleans in Feb., 1958 and puts that date on the photo.

He says Lee (actually Harvey) is on leave in Feb., 1958. (Not possible he is in the Philippines with no home leave)  It makes sense since Harvey has gone AWOL from the Marines after radar training in 1957 and is in New Orleans for about a year.  Harvey, a PFC, shows up on the Marine records again in about August, 1958 as a Pvt.  Was he demoted for his AWOL?

Whatever the circumstances, Robert, Lee, and Harvey are all frauds.  We will probably never know their true story.              

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

No surprise any time context is brought into the equation you start off on some half page rant....

Again, this context you refer to isn't actually context, it's the belief in "Harvey & Leee." At least be honest when you say context, at the least tell us all what you really mean...which is "if you read Harvey & Lee you would know this is bs."

That's an opinion, that's not actual context.

Quote

 

"Common knowledge" among who are you referring, those at El Toro knowing one man, or at Santa Ana knowing the other? 

Isn't time you learned to cut your food up yourself instead of repeatedly feigning ignorance and asking for smaller and smaller bite sizes?

You see Mark, you come at this with so little knowledge of anything outside your little box that your question are juvenile and these attempts at dismissal are only amusing
making you look like no matter what is offered... your little knowledge trumps all... (pun intended)

 

Again, I believe you all's fervor to one up me has caused you to make another mistake, it was your "Harvey & Lee" compatriots who brought this up. Please, lecture them about which one it was and please try to all get on the same page. Then come back and preach to me about things I actually said.

I was simply replying to their attempt to burn me with "common knowledge" and then use it in exactly the manner I was using.

That's not a burn.

Quote

Here's a thought... do some research BEFORE you reply.   

In all honesty, since you all are the ones making repeated mistakes, maybe you should do some research. You all say different things about the multiple Oswald's, then tell me to do research. Curious, the last time you were at my house. Did I show you my research and what I've done/read/researched over the years?

Quote

That you need me or Jim to explain who John Ely was in tiny bite sized pieces so YOU get it, and why what I posted by Jenner to Rankin is so important....

Not what I asked, I asked what any of that had to do with explaining what common knowledge meant (hint: nothing). I did make a mistake in referring to Ely as the interviewee though, my mistake and apologies there.

Quote

Blanks?  you need examples...  

I do, of course. I believe we all would, I believe you would like examples of how your work was "wrong" versus some guy saying get over it David, it's just wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe if some guy said you're wrong you'd just hang it up and retire. Maybe you'd want to know what he was talking about so you could determine if in fact you were wrong, and modify your argument as necesarry, or check to see if maybe he was the one wrong.

In any event, you'd want me to not just explain that you are wrong, but to show and provide a rationale other than "we have evidence."

Quote

 

"we can't change the fact that a little bit more of "Harvey & Lee" dies every day. Regardless of anyone's obstination, and refusal to release grasp on the necrotic limbs which are the Stripling and Beauregard tales, evidence continues to come to light which seriously questions and negates the "facts" as presented by Armstrong and team."

Boy oh boy you like those big words.....  we have a 1000 page book, thousands of images and hundreds of notebooks with documents you never knew existed... you hang your entire argument on 2 tiny limbs which sprang up from much larger, very healthy branches....   No "evidence" is offered other than your interpretations of the repetition of the same story over many years and from multiple sources.

 

My apologies, I read a lot and I went through a lot of school where I had to write a lot as well. I can speak more from the streets, if that would help you understand, dawg.

Quote

 

In this thread you posted:  "Even if I believed "Harvey & Lee" I would dismiss everything related to Stripling because it doesn't add up."

To YOU, it doesn't add up.  To YOU Kudlaty is somehow not reliable and trustworthy in his commentary, ...to YOU Mark... no one but you reaches these conclusions from the evidence available to us....  

 

The thing is, is that if any of that is actually true then you have no real standard of belief and you will literally believe anything because again I have to ask what evidence?

Again, it's not

Quote

 

or this:  It's not within me where it is dying. It is just dying. It died within me the first hour I spent researching the claims.

And we're supposed to believe you approach the subject, the context and the detail with any level of open-mindedness as you post over and over and over about something that DIED within you...   I've spent 10 years with H&L....  Spent 2 years with Armstrong going thru footnotes and sources...   We don't agree on 100% of the details... but there is no arguing with the context or the mountain of evidence supporting the existence of these two men...

 

I don't really care what you believe about me, nor am I trying to convince you about anything regarding myself because as much as you all might disagree, and enjoy attacking me, this isn't about me this is about John Kennedy being murdered. If I can somehow not attack you but instead your position why is it so hard for you to do the same for me? Is it because of my hostility? I'll continue to leash that, I worry it's getting out of control though.

Quote

So no, I'm not going to cut your food into little bite sizes so you can fit them into you brain....   That you can't admit to yourself or to this forum that you simply don't have enough of a handle on the subject matter to arrive at any conclusions...  

I'm pretty sure all I've asked you to do is support your position. Back up your claims. Stop saying "we gots evidents" (is correct spelling something I really like too?)

Again, it's not to me it's dying. It's dying when you say a guy who did not attend Stripling is an eyewitness to Oswald attending Stripling. It dies when you say a guy who mistakenly says he taught Oswald in 1952 is used as an eyewitness to Oswald attending Stripling in 1954. It dies when you continue to ignore witness statements and reframe their actual words so they fit your theory.

Schubert gives a different timeline, but because she's so "important" you say she was wrong about the time. She wasn't unclear though, she wasn't wrong, she wasn't mistaken. The boy she identifies as Oswald she saw in a time that puts him somewhere else. Nope, this doesn't matter to you though, because we can use her story if we can some details.

Warren Commission much? You'd do well as one of their attorneys.

"Well Mr. Belin, Mr. Brennan states he saw a guy in the Dal-Tex. I agree Mr. Josephs and that is damaging. Lets ignore that and focus on this other part that fits our theory."

Quote

 

I don't believe the evidence proves that Harvey was at BJHS in the Fall semester of 1953-54 school year....  Harvey and Ma left NYC after the infamous Zoo photo while Lee finished 8th grade.

We know Lee went to BJHS starting in mid-January....  we also know that Harvey was attending BJHS based on witness testimony only...  not the best evidence by far, but obviously in stark contrast to who Lee was pre-, during and post-.....  a much larger, stronger, physical boy versus the much smaller Harvey...

I've already posted the info on 120 N Telemachus in New Orleans and the one phone book anomaly during all those years Margaret Keating lived there.

In March 1954, a piano (schools had those little uprights if I remember correctly... not some huge piano) fell on him....
Myra took him to a clinic and then home to EXCHANGE ALLEY...  John wrote:

Myra stopped her car at 126 Exchange and asked Harvey if his mother was home. He replied,

"No, she's working at the bar."

NOTE: According to employment records, Marguerite Oswald was then working at Burt's Shoe Store. There is no indication in the Warren Volumes, or anywhere else, that she ever worked in a bar. We will soon learn that several people remembered the short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" imposter worked at a bar in the French Quarter and lived at 126 Exchange Place, while at the same time the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald worked at Burt's Shoe Store and lived in Myrtle Evans' building on St. Mary’s Street.

So you see Mark, in the Spring of 1954 LEE was assigned to homeroom 303 while Harvey was with Myra... Commission Ex 1413 has all these grade cards for 53-54 and 54-55.

More from H&L which you didn't read yet provides the context leading into the Fall of 1954.... how you could have found all this in one hour AND come to your conclusions related to Stripling is yet another great mystery of the JFK saga.

Room 303 is on the third floor of Beauregard Junior High School, while Myra's
homeroom was in the basement cafeteria. It appears that Lee Oswald was assigned homeroom 303,
on the 3rd floor, while Harvey was assigned to Myra DaRouse's homeroom in the basement cafeteria.
Now I understood why the FBI report of a 2 -hour interview with Myra disappeared, and
I also understood why Myra was never asked to testify before the Warren Commission. Myra would
have told the Commission that Harvey Oswald was in her homeroom in the basement cafeteria,
and not in homeroom "303" as listed on school records published in the Warren Volumes. In addition
Myra would have refused to identify the student in the "classroom photo" as Oswald, if she
were shown the photo. And imagine if Myra told the Commission that she drove Harvey Oswald
to his apartment at 126 Exchange Place in early 1954, when the Commission knew from Mrytle
and Julian Evans that Marguerite and Lee were living at 1454 St. Marys Street.

I'm terribly sorry you chose not to follow along as the context for what occurs in Sept 1954 requires more than your simplistic view of the Stripling evidence.

The book establishes this context step by step...   but then you wouldn't know that, would you...  another brick in the wall for ya Mark....  if indeed you're taking any of this seriously as it appears each time you reply, you don't.  After explaining some of this to you for the umpteenth time this is your reply:  And we're suppose to take you seriously?

Cool story bro. None of that though has any relation, any bearing, or any impact on Stripling and whether Oswald attending Stripling.

Another Beauregard classmate who knew Harvey Oswald was Ed Collier who
recalled, "We called him Yank because he had a Yankee accent."9 !t is now easy to see that
Ed Collier knew Harvey Oswald, from New York, in the 8th grade at Beauregard in the spring
of 1954. Lee Oswald, who was born in New Orleans and raised in Fort Worth, had a southern
accent.
Oswald's cousin, Marilyn Murret, also talked about Harvey's northern accent.
She told the Warren Commission, "It seems that he was from the North, and so they
ridiculed him in school..

After June 10, 1954 Myra no longer see her little friend Harvey.  Lee attends BJHS for the 54-55 school year and the rest of the evidence we've been over so many times along with your sarcastic and flippant attitude toward anything you deem not important or necessary to form your conclusions...

We've dealt with these kinds of endless "I'm not going to listen to anything that doesn't directly relate to the words in my question" attitude from the "iceberg pack" for more years than I care to remember.   (all your knowledge of the subject is above the waterline combined with that "no, no, no I'm not going to look beneath the water... I've seen enough" POV of yours....

Just read that one line of yours just above in blue.... trying to convince us you're actually interested and/or serious falls flat every time you post...

From 1947 thru 1959 and then thru 1963 we have hundreds of examples of evidence which made John Ely's work so hard and from which prompted Jenner's memo to Rankin.

When the day comes you decide to remove the blinders and step back from this leaf to see the forest, maybe you will actually be open to a real discussion....

 

More information which in no way proves anything regarding Kudlaty, proves nothing in any way regarding Summers.

Keep calling it context, maybe one day if you click your heels when you do it'll actually be true.

Until then...it's just a pre-conceived notion.

Prove me wrong. Tell me your not telling me that if I just believe in this story of two boys then Stripling will make sense. It won't though, it'll never change what Summers said, it'll never make Pitts a member of the school, it will never change the timeline Schubert provides.

Quote

As long as the evidence and context are just a "cool story, bro" to you... we have nothing more to discuss....
(and I'm not you're bro... or is that yet another weak attempt at South Park humor?)

I gotta say, and I probably am biased on this one, but I did think that was at least slightly humorous and funnier than any of your attempts. I'm not a "cancel culture" person. Just because I disagree with one aspect of something about a person doesn't mean I burn all my CD's. Nugent for example is a freakin blow hard at best, but I still love his music. The same is true here, if I thought you said something funny I wouldn't write if off just because I think you are wrong about Stripling, or about "Harvey & Lee" in general. Truth be told, there are a variety of things you've done which I respect, I'm also sure you can tell funny jokes or otherwise be witty.

With that respect in mind, I cannot fathom how practices of scrutiny which you apply to other stories and other evidence is not applied in this instance. It truly is mind boggling and I just cannot wrap my (apparently and maybe why I can't understand) feeble mind around it.

Quote

 

And I did go over to the Brennen thread... and did see that once again your impression of things is different from everyone else, you're not quoted once in terms of adding anything to the collective knowledge presented,..  and your collage as to where Brennen was .. you even included this Bell frame: albeit a tiny version, when a full size version leaves one with no doubts or needs for personal conclusions...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wkx7S63i_NyfAFDi9WZo8yyyZat_Zdhz/view?usp=sharing   (highlight, right click, click Go To: "link")

Anyone with eyes can see where he is.... and the Towner film gives a decent view of what he actually saw at the time...  but that's another topic for another time...

I've come to the personal conclusion that Brennan was not directly facing the TSBD but was instead directly facing the Dal-Tex

Pithy Mark....  

  :up


 

I would correct your spelling of Brennan, maybe I'm just not "knowledgeable" or have the "proper context" to understand why it was spelled that way, so I figured I wouldn't embarrass myself, again.

I gotta say though David, if anyone with eyes can see it then there are some blind people on that thread. Since, you know, more than 1 seems to not be sure about where Brennan is sitting.

The main reason I provided the images all in one picture, was to just show it all in a concise manner without hogging bandwidth to show something anyone with eyes could see.

I also wasn't looking for any "atta-boys" which at this point seems to be the only reason you have an interest in JFK research, so other people can say "way to go David, you sure are the neatest!" Even if I solved the JFKA all by my lonesome (which would never be done, nor am I even trying to do) I wouldn't want some kind of glory, I would gladly say I couldn't have done it without David Josephs so you could get all the "atta-boys" you'd ever need.

I was just giving my personal opinion I wasn't really trying to solicit any feedback outside of my specific question to you on that thread. Which at this point I realize was pointless, since I don't believe in "Harvey & Lee" then any conclusion I make will be wrong since it doesn't include that "context."

Curious, is James File context as well? Do I have to understand how those puzzle pieces fit to understand Stripling? What about the fact that both Jackie and Greer shot JFK? What aspects of that context do I need to apply to Stripling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Which do you think he got wrong?  The February, 1958 or September, 1959

Lee Oswald visited his brother Robert in November 1958 after returning from Japan but before going to California.

Just above the 1Jul58 accrued Correction...   19Nov58 - 18Dec58   Hunting during Thanksgiving... possibly wearing the medium sized whitish-grey jacket left to incriminate Harvey

img_1136_704_300.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Lee Oswald visited his brother Robert in November 1958 after returning from Japan but before going to California.

Just above the 1Jul58 accrued Correction...   19Nov58 - 18Dec58   Hunting during Thanksgiving... possibly wearing the medium sized whitish-grey jacket left to incriminate Harvey

img_1136_704_300.png

David,

Your saying that my speculation of another time for the hunting trip could be valid?  Lee was on leave after his oriental service and that was from 23 Nov. 1958 to 18 Dec. 1958.

There is also no mention of leave in Feb., 1958.  Can't be Harvey in that photo (except for the head).   

Lee also went home after his March, 1959 discharge, maybe.  Did Robert get both dates wrong?  Two many Lees to keep up with? I say two many to keep up with? 

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...